Reports From the Field

Improved Coordination of Care for Patients with Abnormalities on Chest Imaging: The Rapid Access Chest and Lung Assessment Program

Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management. 2014 October;22(10)

Author(s):

Stephen M. Cattaneo II

Maria Christina M. Geronimo, RN, MSN, MBA

Teresa M. J. Putscher, RN, BSN, OCN

Catherine Brady-Copertino, BSN, MSN, OCN

Barry R. Meisenberg, MD

References

1. Alpert JB, Fantauzzi JP, Melamud K, et al. Clinical significance of lung nodules reported on abdominal CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;1998:793–9.

2. Hall WB, Truitt SG, Scheunemann LP, et al. The prevalence of clinically relevant incidental findings on chest computed tomographic angiograms ordered to diagnose pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1961–5.

3. Wahidi MM, Govert JA, Goudar RK, et al. Evidence for the treatment of patients with pulmonary nodules: when is it lung cancer? Chest 2007;132(3 Suppl):94S–107S.

4. Ost D, Fein AM, Feinsilver SH. The solitary pulmonary nodule. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2535–42.

5. MacMahon H, Austin JH, Gamsu G, et al. Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2005;237:395–400.

6. Ray Jr CE, English B, Funaki BS, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria radiologic management of thoracic nodules and masses. J Am Coll Radiol 2012;9:13–9.

7. Kanne JP, Jensen LE, Tan-Lucien HM, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria radiographically detected solitary pulmonary nodule. J Thorac Imaging 2013;28:W1–W3.

8. Edey AJ, Hansell DM. Incidentally detected small pulmonary nodules on CT. Clin Radiol 2009;64:872–84.

9. Nair A, Baldwin DR, Field JK, et al. Measurement methods and algorithms for the management of solid nodules. J Thorac Imaging 2012;27:230–9.

10. Eisenberg RL, Bankier, Boiselle PM. Compliance with Fleischner Society guidelines for management of small lung nodules: a survey of 834 radiologists. Radiology 2010;255:218–24.

11. Lacson, RL, Prevedello LM, Andriole KP, et al. Factors associated with radiologists’ adherence to Fleischner guidelines for management of pulmonary nodules. J Am Coll Radiol 2012; 9:468–73.

12. Esmail A, Munden RF, Muhammed TL. Small pulmonary nodule management: a survey of the members of the Society of Thoracic Radiology with comparison to the Fleischner Society guidelines. J Thorac Imaging 2011;26:27–31.

13. Masciocchi M, Wagner B, Lloyd B. Quality review: Fleischner criteria adherence by radiologists in a large community hospital. J Am Coll Radiol 2012;9:336–9.

14. National Cancer Institute Patient Information page: non-small cell lung cancer. Accessed 1 Jul 2013 at www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/non-small-cell-lung/Patient#Keypoint4.

15. Wiener RS, Gould MK, Woloshin S, et al. What do you mean, a spot? a qualitative analysis of patients’ reactions to discussion with their physicians about pulmonary nodules. Chest 2013;143:672–7.

16. McMahon H. Compliance with Fleischner Society guidelines for management of lung nodules: lessons and opportunities. Radiology 2010;255:14–5.

17. Lo DS, Zeldin RA, Skratsins R, et al. Time to treat: a system redesign focusing on decreasing the time from suspicion of lung cancer to diagnosis. J Thorac Oncol 2007;2:1001–6.

18. Brocken P, Loers BAB, Looijen-Salamon MG, et al. Timeliness of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment in a rapid outpatient diagnostic program with combined 18FDG-PET and contrast enhanced CT scanning. Lung Cancer 2012;75:336–41.

19. Alsamarai S, Xiaopan Y, Cain HC, et al. The effect of a lung cancer care coordination program on timeliness of care. Clin Lung Cancer 2013;14:527–34.

20. Leprieur EG, Labrune S, Giraud V, et al. Delay between the initial symptomsa, the diagnosis and the onset of specific treatment in elderly patients with lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 2012;13:363–8.

21. Cheung WY, Butler JR, Kliewer EV, et al. Analysis of wait times and costs during the peri-diagnostic period for non small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2011;72:125–31.

22. Report card of community health indicators. Anne Arundel County Department of Health. Accessed 20 Jul 2013 at www.aahealth.org/pdf/aahealth-report-card-2011.pdf.

From the DeCesaris Cancer Institute, Anne Arundel Medical Center, Annapolis, MD.

Abstract

Objective: To describe the development and outcomes of a centralized evaluation service for patients with abnormalities on thoracic imaging to allow prompt and standardized review by an experienced multidisciplinary team.
Methods: Patients with abnormal thoracic imaging studies, whether symptom-related or incidental, were referred to a specialized multidisciplinary team by radiologists, primary care physicians, or other providers. Recommendations for immediate or delayed follow-up were made based on professional society guidelines and patient characteristics. Follow-up was maintained within the program with close communication with primary care physicians.
Results: 238 patients were referred over a 27-month period, 227 with abnormal findings on chest imaging. 171 patients (75%) accepted participation in the program. Radiologists were the most frequent referrers. Pulmonary symptoms were present in 74% of cases but were often unrelated to the findings. Patients and primary care physicians were contacted within a median of 2 days after imaging. Lung cancer was eventually diagnosed in 72 patients (32%), 51% with stage IA-IIB, at a median time of 16 days from first imaging. Physician satisfaction with the program was high.
Conclusion: The program provided rapid and evidence-based evaluation and management of patients with thoracic imaging abnormalities, resulting in short time to diagnosis and high referring physician satisfaction.

Nonspecific abnormalities after chest imaging are a clinical dilemma for physicians and a source of anxiety for patients concerned about the possibility of malignancy. The range of abnormal findings most often involve the parenchyma but also can include nodal tissue, mediastinum, and the bony thorax. Often these findings are incidental to the symptoms that prompted the evaluation. For example, one study of over 12,000 abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans detected pulmonary nodules in 3% [1], and a study of 586 CT angiograms ordered in an emergency room found nodules in 13% and new adenopathy in 9% [2]. Furthermore, CT imaging in various lung cancer screening trials demonstrate that the prevalence of 1 or more pulmonary nodules is 8% to 51%, but the risk of malignancy is much less: 1.1% to 12% [3]. Indeed, it is estimated that due to a high prevalence of imaging, over 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with solitary pulmonary nodules (SPN) annually [2]. Although nodule characteristics such as size, shape, and stability over time can predict the likelihood of malignancy, the risk that any of these imaging abnormalities are related to a malignancy depends upon characteristics of both the lesion and the patient.

Given the nonspecific nature of many radiographic findings, management strategies and guidelines have been developed for several different types of imaging abnormalities [4–7]. However, gaps in the guidelines exist, and they often are not followed [8,9]. Radiologists are not adherent to any set of guidelines in as many as 64% of cases, despite a high level of awareness of such guidelines [10–13]. Recommendations that are not concordant with guidelines are more likely to involve excessively frequent imaging rather than inappropriately infrequent follow-up [13].

Actual cases of under- and over-imaging in surveillance and a single case of delayed diagnosis despite a radiology report highlighting a high-risk nodule prompted us to developed a centralized program to gather all patients with pulmonary imaging abnormalities into the hands of physicians most familiar with these abnormalities and the proper use of available diagnostic tools. The goals were to rely on existing guidelines tempered with clinical experience to advise patients and their primary care physicians, and to direct the most efficient diagnostic evaluation and management.